Why sola Scriptura?

[Chiefsinner]

When you think of sola scripture think of it this way. The book doesn’t magically rise up in the sky and say " hey there… Here is how you should interpret me" That doesn’t happen.

We have all been to college and we know that when a person reads a book he’s going to read it differently. Give 100 people a book and tell them to come one month later and agree to a common belief you think that’s going to happen?

In the same way when you give the bible to 100 different ppl you are going to get 100 different teachings… take this number to a larger scale and I hope you get my drift…

Protestants believe the holy spirit leads them to truth scripture seems to say otherwise…

1 John 2:26-27, which says, “I write this to you about those who would deceive you, but the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you, as His anointing teaches you about everything.” At first glance, this might appear to support their argument. However, putting it in context reveals something quite different. Note that John begins by saying, “I write this to you about those who would deceive you.” These are the teachers that John tells us we have no need of. Read verses 21-25, and the context becomes even clearer. “I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it…Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in **you,
then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is what He has promised us, eternal life.” **

And Scripture teaches that Christ established an authoritative church. That is why Paul tells Titus, who headed the church at Crete, to “Exhort and reprove with all
authority. Let no one disregard you” (Titus 2:15). Indeed an authoritative church is necessary in light of 2 Peter 1:20: “You must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” So Scripture makes us
complete by showing us that we need it and that we need the Church to teach us what it means. Only a church whose teachings are authoritative and unchanging can qualify as “The Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

There is a great debate over here if you are interested between a protestant and catholic
youtube.com/watch?v=Dhnez4NAGtg

Sola scripture wasn’t possible in the 1st century because most people couldn’t afford a bible in the first century ( they didn’t have xerox or printing press that came 1500 years later at the time of reformation)

To buy a bible in today’s monetary value would be 3 years wages and hardly anyone could afford that. You have to remember Christianity flourished after 4th century before that there were severe persecutions…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Sola scriptura, as in scripture is the greatest authority, above even the church, is flawed in that it must rely on a lesser authority in order to establish the contents in the first place. Why would we rely on a lesser authority (ie the church and tradition) in order to tell us what the greatest authority is? In order for us to have even the most basic bible we must submit that the church is equal to scripture. That would be my answer to sola scriptura.

 

[JonNC]

sola scriptura doesn’t make sense because the bible canon did not exist until it was put together in the 300s. Then it was painstakingly HANDWRITTEN and HAND-COPIED by Catholic Monks for Hundreds of Years BEFORE the Printing Press was invented. The teachings were passed down by the apostles and their successors for years.

Do you think Peter pulled out a pocket sized copy of the New Testament on the First Pentecost to teach the people?

and no one who understands SS makes the claim that SS was an apostolic practice. There was no need for it with the Apostles around. No need for it when their students were around.

Jon

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**Ignatian

Why would we rely on a lesser authority (ie the church and tradition) in order to tell us what the greatest authority is?**

 

[KP3243]

and no one who understands SS makes the claim that SS was an apostolic practice. There was no need for it with the Apostles around. No need for it when their students were around.

Jon

So 1500 years after the Apostles were dead they decided to use Sola Scriptura, by what authority did they make that decision - how are you sure that what your Bible says is the Word of God?

 

[SteveVH]

My main problem with SS is that it accepts the authority of the Catholic Church to determine the canon of Scripture and then turns around and rejects that very authority. Something I have never understood.

“You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.” (Mark Shea)

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Protestants don’t want authorized men to interpret Scripture for them.
Sola Scriptura is essentially “Whatever I want/need Scripture to mean for me.”

So it isn’t really “Sola” Scriptura, it’s “How I interpret” Scriptura.

If anybody wants to know the negative consequences of this “Sola Scriptura”
mess, look at the 30,000 Christian denominations, and even the Mormons,
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarian ‘christians’.

At some point one must conclude that MAYBE this freestyle interpretation of Holy Scripture
and even the butchering of it (referring to the exclusion of the Deuterocanon) is a little wrong.

 

[benjohnson]

No one calling themselves a Christian for 1500 years used this cannon and then Martin Luther changes it???. This is the Word of God we are talking about you just cannot remove it!!!

Martin Luther’s Bible is longer than the Catholic Bible - 74 books.

The problem of missing books is a English-speaking Christian problem having more to do with the Westminster Confession of Faith and 17th century skinflint printers.

 

[SteveVH]

Martin Luther’s Bible is longer than the Catholic Bible - 74 books.

The problem of missing books is a English-speaking Christian problem having more to do with the Westminster Confession of Faith and 17th century skinflint printers.

Correct. This is something that is little understood in the Catholic community. However, Luther’s opinion of the deuterocanonical books certainly led many to believe that they were not all that important, thus opening the door to the publishing companies cutting corners by excluding them. Was there any outcry by the Lutherans against the publishing companies excluding them?

 

[adf417]

Martin Luther’s Bible is longer than the Catholic Bible - 74 books.

The problem of missing books is a English-speaking Christian problem having more to do with the Westminster Confession of Faith and 17th century skinflint printers.

This seems very misleading ben…Does yours still have 74 books or the 73 from which Luther changed from?

 

[KP3243]

Martin Luther’s Bible is longer than the Catholic Bible - 74 books.

The problem of missing books is a English-speaking Christian problem having more to do with the Westminster Confession of Faith and 17th century skinflint printers.

Oh so you have Tobit, Sirach, both Maccabees, all of Judith and Daniel? I didn’t know that. Every Protestant Bible I have seen doesn’t include these.

 

[KP3243]

Protestants don’t want authorized men to interpret Scripture for them.
Sola Scriptura is essentially “Whatever I want/need Scripture to mean for me.”

So it isn’t really “Sola” Scriptura, it’s “How I interpret” Scriptura.

If anybody wants to know the negative consequences of this “Sola Scriptura”
mess, look at the 30,000 Christian denominations, and even the Mormons,
Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Unitarian ‘christians’.

At some point one must conclude that MAYBE this freestyle interpretation of Holy Scripture
and even the butchering of it (referring to the exclusion of the Deuterocanon) is a little wrong.

All I know is that God doesn’t create confusion like this where Christians are running around with different Bibles and believe radically different things, however men do create confusion very easily and 2 Peter 1:20-21 says the Bible is not open to private interpretation.

 

[benjohnson]

Oh so you have Tobit, Sirach, both Maccabees, all of Judith and Daniel? I didn’t know that. Every Protestant Bible I have seen doesn’t include these.

Most English speaking Lutherans have truncated bibles because we tended to buy then from English publishers - as we developed our own publishing, we’ve been seeing more of the Deuterocanonical books.

blogs.lcms.org/2012/cph-publishes-first-lutheran-english-edition-of-apocrypha

Oddly enough, I know two Catholics with the LCMS study edition of the Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical books) - frankly it surprised me, but the notes are very very good.

The rumors are that the CPH will be producing new bibles with them in one volume! The really amusing thing is that we’ve caught some grief over it for being too ‘papist’ from some of our Protestant neighbors.

 

[benjohnson]

Was there any outcry by the Lutherans against the publishing companies excluding them?

Among American Lutherans, probably not - as immigrants we were very poor and were probably happy to have any bible and were probably very thankful to have cheap English bibles.

The Bibles imported from Germany from the 19th century have 74 books at my church.

 

[pablope]

Martin Luther’s Bible is longer than the Catholic Bible - 74 books.

The problem of missing books is a English-speaking Christian problem having more to do with the Westminster Confession of Faith and 17th century skinflint printers.

Correction…1820s or so…so that would make it 19th Century printers???

British and Foreign Bible Society House,
London, February 10, 1826.

We beg leave to inform you that important reasons have induced the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible society to adopt the subjoined Resolution:—
“That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the Canonical Books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those books, and parts of books, which are usually termed Apocryphal; and that all copies printed, either entirely or in part, at the expense of the Society; and whether such copies consist of the whole or of any one or more of such books, be invariably issued bound; no other books whatever being bound with them: and further, that all money grants to societies or individuals be made only in conformity with the principle of this regulation.”
While the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society have adopted this Regulation for their own guidance, nothing is further from their intention than to interfere, in the smallest degree, with the religious views and opinions, or with the rites and usages, of foreign churches; —they respect that liberty of conscience in others which they themselves so happily enjoy.
The Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society embrace this opportunity of assuring all their continental brethren of their most unfeigned Christian regard, and of their anxious desire to contribute as liberally as possible to the Foreign Societies consistently with their present Resolution; and they shall deem it their privilege and happiness invariably to maintain that pleasing bond of harmony and union which has so long and so beneficially subsisted between the British and Foreign Bible Society and the kindred Institutions of the Continent.

We remain, respectfully,
Your obedient humble Servants,
(Signed) A. BRANDRAM,
Jos. HUGHES,
C.F.A. STEINKOPFF [Secretaries]

forum.chnetwork.org/index.php/topic,11538.0.html

Quote
Since the Catholic Bible was the First Bible written how can they say that the King James Bible is the true bible? When they leave the Seven books out of it?

The deletion of the Deuterocanonical books in the King James Version (which originally included them) was not the work of any denominational authorities. Instead, it came about because the printers contracted to print copies of the Authorized Version were restricted in the amount they could charge for a Bible. The printers noted that Protestants generally, and the majority of Church of England adherents in particular, following the lead of Martin Luther and the Lutherans in Germany, did not seem to consider the Deuterocanonicals (which non-Catholics preferred to call Apocrypha, or “doubtful”) divinely inspired. They then proceeded to cut those pages out of the copies they printed, thereby reducing the amount of material and labor required and increasing their profit. Few complaints were registered, and the custom of leaving the “Apocryphal books” out of the King James Version was de facto established.

 

[pablope]

Among American Lutherans, probably not - as immigrants we were very poor and were probably happy to have any bible and were probably very thankful to have cheap English bibles.

The Bibles imported from Germany from the 19th century have 74 books at my church.

But were in the German language?

 

[benjohnson]

But were in the German language?

Thanks for the correction above on the dates!

Yep in German.

This year we used the 1880’s service that was in German, Greek and Latin. good times!

 

[pablope]

Thanks for the correction above on the dates!

Yep in German.

This year we used the 1880’s service that was in German, Greek and Latin. good times!

Unless you knew German or Greek…was your head spinning trying to understand the service?

 

[benjohnson]

Unless you knew German or Greek…was your head spinning trying to understand the service?

Oddly enough… not really. About half of our regular service is in Latin and Greek, so it was the German sermon that flew over my head.

The remainder had the same structure - but what was truly amazing was the almost entire service was sung, not spoken.

 

[Contarini]

**Ignatian

Why would we rely on a lesser authority (ie the church and tradition) in order to tell us what the greatest authority is?**

Why not? If the greater authority doesn’t speak for itself, that’s your only choice. C. S. Lewis’s analogy was a professor telling his students “go read such-and-such a scholar who knows more about the subject than I do.” You go to the book because the professor testified that it had authority, but that doesn’t make the professor’s authority equal to or greater than that of the scholar he cites. Quite the reverse.

Edwin